The Government ignored the warnings of senior corruption fighters and lawyers that its legislation would kill the public’s independent watchdog and create a political lapdog, which would bury government corruption while snarling loudly at opponents.

“... appear designed to ensure that the restructured commission will not investigate corruption by Queensland politicians and public officials if that might embarrass the government."

Mr Drummond further commented:

"It is an extraordinary exercise for the Newman Government to engage in at the very time ICAC in Sydney is exposing how corrupt politicians of both major parties will work hand in hand with opportunistic businessmen to plunder public assets.”

The new body will be in place when, if the Government has its way, multi-million dollar contracts are being handed to companies buying or leasing public assets.

A Government-dominated parliamentary committee unanimously opposed a plan to limit corruption complaints to those people willing to make statutory declarations. Nevertheless, the Government has focussed on preventing anonymous complaints by forcing most complaints to be backed by statutory declarations.

Critics of the proposal point out that if this became a requirement of Crime Stoppers, useful information would immediately dry up.

But the Government is restricting the new commission’s ability to decide on what issues it should research. The Minister has already made it plain that he is not likely to approve research into political donations.

“The chairman alone will have control over the key anti-corruption activities of the commission. His power will be absolute. All the critical powers for dealing with corruption will be delegated to him .... He can determine for himself whether a particular complaint of corruption is investigated and whether and ongoing investigation should be terminated and the complaint dismissed.”

The Inquiry recommended many changes and advocated the creation of an implementation panel consisting of the Public Service Commissioner, the chairperson of the CMC and two others − including a senior lawyer − to formulate their recommendations into a Bill.

They specifically stipulated that the fourth member of the panel should not be a current or former public servant.

Not only did the government ignore this latter recommendation, but it put the public servant it chose, John Sosso − the Director-General of the Department of Justice − in charge of the process.

"When the [corruption] inquiry was established in 1987 the National Party Attorney-General was advised and influenced by a small ambitious group of Justice Department bureaucrats. The Attorney-General appointed one, John Sosso, as secretary to the inquiry. Sosso didn't last long in that role but returned to the Justice Department which, as the inquiry's report notes, did little willingly to assist the inquiry."

"The Justice Department and the Police Department did not intend to lose control .... Reasons were advanced for restricting the Commission's access to material."

The Fitzgerald Report also commented:

'In the aftermath of this report's release, present and former Justice Department personnel, who are steeped in attitudes which have contributed to the current problems, may well try to reassert their influence and regain control of the agenda for reform.'

Mr Fitzgerald went on to tell the parliamentary committee:

“Sooner or later the Premier will have to bring the Justice Department under control or risk public humiliation."

“I must say that the performance of Mr Sosso before the parliamentary committee was unimpressive. My impression was of a man who could barely tolerate or be bothered with attending. I have to say that I found his evidence underwhelming and unconvincing.”

For more than 20 years, the major parties had agreed that a proposed commissioner of the watchdog had to receive bipartisan support from a parliamentary committee. The Government has scrapped this practice and will appoint someone to its new commission who it alone finds acceptable.

The proposal to scrap the need for bipartisan approval came solely from the implementation panel.

The committee, which had been sacked by the Government only months before and reformed with only two non-Government members, has spent up to four months examining other Bills, but in this case submissions had to be made in only three weeks.

The widespread criticism of the legislation suggest it is highly unlikely that anyone with the qualifications, experience and integrity necessary for the position of Commissioner will trash his or her reputation by applying for such a position.

Anyone accepting such a position is likely to be viewed by the legal profession and by public servants as a puppet of the Newman Government — just like the current acting chair.

* In an earlier version of this article we said the PCMC has been receiving submissions from the public about the legislation. This was an error in the editing process and not by the author.

IA is dedicated to providing fearless, independent journalism, free for all, with no barriers. But we need your help. To keep us speaking truth to power, please consider donating to IA today - even a dollar will make a huge difference - or subscribe and receive all the benefits of membership. Keep ‘em honest. Support IA.